Successor game rules, draft one.

[Zim]

YLC actually has everything pretty much as my answers, with just a few small differences.

I was thinking about that. When I get a little more feedback, I may try to draft some possible PvP rules that put a little more structure on what we have.

On non-PvP matters, re-reading the rules, I had the following comments/queries/suggestions:


1. (f) The Games master insert ”Can use the console to add money or units to AI factions and to move AI stacks.”

To be honest I kind of thought of that as a given, but I can add it to the rules.

2 a. Starting Houses I think we have three, not two, starting RBGs - see the Frenchifying thread. Can we introduce some concept of Duke as Steward so these initial Dukes are replaced when the King’s sons come of age? Should we ban adoptions until the King has a fourth child?

Starting RGB Dukes (2 or however many we need to get 4 houses) are real dukes and exempt from any of the special rules regarding joining the House of any adopted parents. Adding stewards as in KOTR is easy enough but I didn't see any reason to...having all four Houses going to the King's first 4 male children doesn't sit well with me.

2 b RBGs: what does it mean about an RBG marrying a King’s daughter being free to “attempt to create his own House”. What is involved in the attempt? Is it just 2c getting a 2/3 majority edict to be a Duke? Is so, why mention the marriage, as all can become Dukes by 2c? Maybe it is better to drop this bit about marriage and instead talk about the missing 4th line on the family tree - it could be filled by a son or a daughter. Anyone marrying said The 4th son or anyone marrying the daughter would automatically become head of the 4th House.

That part is pretty confusing, and likely didn't need put in the rules. I just meant that if you marry into the royal family in such a way you're exempt of the requirement to join your new parent's house, so you've started a new line of sorts that hasn't been placed by default into the House structure. It probably didn't need to be added since King's aren't member's of a House any way so becoming one's son-in-law wouldn't force you into one.

3a Gaining and losing provinces what’s the point of “While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement.” Is it to put a break on expansion? Otherwise, it is simpler to say that before the full session, the province is royal and can be taxed/recruit freely. After the full session, if not ratified, you have said it must be abandoned - which means no recruitment (and max taxes if you like).

Mostly I wanted to make it tough on a player who decided to go along with the option to refuse to hand over a settlement. Until things are resolved and the settlement ratified he gets no use out of it. Otherwise a friendly Chancellor could just treat it as if it belonged to the squatter.

3 c retinue: why allow people to remove retinue? are we condoning killing mother in laws here? It seems to lose some RPG character if we allow that. Your character has ornate armour, live with it. What is the meaning of the “title” retinues?

Title revenues were some from the mod we used for SS. The purpose of being able to move retinues was to allow avatars to make gifts of say a crusader relic or fine sword, and to allow the removal of pagan magicians, which were a huge pain in LOTR, at least in the early days.

One player (Tristan) rolled with it but most found them an annoyance and out of character. And they threatened to drop players out of the crusader House in LOTR as there was a minimum piety requirement.

Prioritising units: what is to say these units become owned by the player who prioritised them? Suppose player X has Toulouse, the only castle we have. All units in Toulouse are garrisons by definition and so may not be taken by lieges. Should we say explicitly these units belong to the player prioritising them and should be moved by his instruction? And are exempt from seizure even if led by captains?

Players can only recruit prioritized units from their own settlements. If they have no castles, then they have no castle units unless they make an agreement with some other House.

They're only immune to seizure if in a settlement owned by the player or led by him or an ally.

That was one thing that worked very well in LOTR with no problems that I recall...

Seizing armies: perhaps clarify that you can’t seize armies outside of your feudal chain?

Can we “protect” some national armies from seizure or must they always be led in person? What I am thinking of is suppose the King or Chancellor or Prince want to stay at home, for whatever reason, but get a noble to lead “their army”. Can we allow for that somehow? Allow these figures - only - to “lend” their armies to another noble without surrendering ownership? It will require some book keeping I know.

If armies are sent led by captain they can be seized by any noble. That's a risk players need to consider (as is the fact the Chancellor has to move them for you).

On a related point, I am not seeing any power of the Chancellor to move armies led by nobles. So if he wants anything reliably doing, he must do it himself? This is rather stifling if he is relatively minor and does not have much of a personal army (he must recruit all prioritised units before he can get more men for himself).

He has command of all captain led stacks. If people are seizing them he has to figure something out, but in LOTR this was never a huge issue. Nobles move their own armies.

fleets what about fleets that don’t start their turn in a port or with a noble? do you mean they are owned by the person owning the last port they were in? I am wondering whether they should owned by Houses, to simplify matters.

Fleets outside of port with no noble leading them can be moved or disbanded at the will of the Chancellor, as in LOTR... We can make them House (or King) owned, but that will remove some of the Chancellor's power to manage the affairs of the Kingdom, while adding comparatively little to the game, in my opinion.

[econ21]

On the king's four bloodlines automatically becoming Dukes, the key point is that this will lead to the four starter Houses being visible as the four branches of the family tree. I think that is really neat. It will also encourage more "familial" role-playing if Houses each have a core group sof blood relations (I am thinking here of the von Kastiliens, the Steffens). With Houses led by starter RBGs, there will be no inheritance by blood unless RBGs marry into the King's family tree. Duchies will just be political collections of players rather than family-based groupings - that may be what people want but I prefer the more organic KotR model. There will be enough starting RBGs that the "political collection" feature of Houses will still be there.

A Steward Duke mechanic would tide us over nicely until the four branches are established on the map. It is not complex and worked pretty well in KotR.

EDIT: On another matter, what are the rules about converting cities to castles and vice versa? Owner's discretion?

[Zim]

I'm not too worried about having stewards making the rules too complex but am not sure doing so will add much. Several players will end up playing in an almost Duke sort of position for a lengthy amount of time while the King's young children come of age. I suppose it looks neat and orderly on the family tree page, but it rubs me the wrong way to have all four Houses run by the King's children. It seems at odds with the decentralized feudal feel I believe we're going for. Never mind that since Dukes can name anyone they want their heir the neat 4 branched tree could break down.

I suppose the fact that I played an RGB for the majority of my time in KOTR and didn't pay much attention to the family tree in LOTR (beyond the immediate Imperial family) colors my perspective...

All in all I think it's a fairly minor point so I'll make the change if most players prefer it.

As far as changing castles to cities and the reverse, I think that would fall under the rules for players setting the build queue for their settlement. It did happen once or twice in LOTR but wasn't much of an issue. All Houses were able to obtain at least one castle early on.

[econ21]

Just to clarify a couple of points where YLC and Zim's answers may differ.

On marrying into royalty:

Marrying the Princess simple gets you a free ticket for a House, bypassing the 2/3rds requirement otherwise needed.

Versus:

That part is pretty confusing, and likely didn't need put in the rules. I just meant that if you marry into the royal family in such a way you're exempt of the requirement to join your new parent's house, so you've started a new line of sorts that hasn't been placed by default into the House structure. It probably didn't need to be added since King's aren't member's of a House any way so becoming one's son-in-law wouldn't force you into one.

I am still a little lost, can we reword or delete the relevant part of 2a to clarify this? The passage as it stands is:

2a ....Should a recruitable general become married to any of the daughters of the current King, he is considered to have started a new noble line and is free to attempt to create his own House or have his family join an existing one as he sees fit.

On prioritisation:

Units are owned by whomever controls them - so if they are in a players stack, or settlement, or fort, then they belong to him. Prioritization has nothing to do with whom controls the units, it is simply players asking for units to be train at X location - for instance, player A could use his unit prioritizations in city B, which belongs to player C. The Units, once trained, belong to player C, not A.

Players can only recruit prioritized units from their own settlements. If they have no castles, then they have no castle units unless they make an agreement with some other House.

How about letting players "give" their prioritsation to another player? So if they have no castle, they can let a friend with one recruit for them. Of course, the recruited units belong to the friend unless and until he honours the deal. Saying you can only prioritise units in your own settlements seems to make agreements with other Houses too difficult, if that other House has to give up their quota to implement it.

I am suggesting rewording item 3 under the rules for the Chancellor:

"Except for the King, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Noble requesting the units or owned by a vassal in his feudal chain."

to by adding:

"or owned by another Noble who consents to it."

The point about the consenting Noble still owning the prioritised unit is implicit in the rest of the rules.

[KnightnDay]

On prioritisation:





How about letting players "give" their prioritsation to another player? So if they have no castle, they can let a friend with one recruit for them. Of course, the recruited units belong to the friend unless and until he honours the deal. Saying you can only prioritise units in your own settlements seems to make agreements with other Houses too difficult, if that other House has to give up their quota to implement it.

I am suggesting rewording item 3 under the rules for the Chancellor:

"Except for the King, the Location is restricted to any settlement owned by the Noble requesting the units or owned by a vassal in his feudal chain."

to by adding:

"or owned by another Noble who consents to it."

The point about the consenting Noble still owning the prioritised unit is implicit in the rest of the rules.

This is the sort of rule we should not include as it lends little to the game, but rather makes things more confusing or complex. Yes, a player can build a unit and give it to another. Nuff ced.

[ULC]

This is the sort of rule we should not include as it lends little to the game, but rather makes things more confusing or complex. Yes, a player can build a unit and give it to another. Nuff ced.

Why not just have it that your ability to prioritize units can target any province owned by your faction? Simple, and flexible.

[Cecil XIX]

Why not just have it that your ability to prioritize units can target any province owned by your faction? Simple, and flexible.

I'd prefer things to stay as they are. If you want to acquire the best units without asking for outside help, make sure you own the settlements where they are produced!